Yes, but to clarify, and to revert to an alternative metaphor to the “supra-organism” (perhaps get back there later, there are profound insights in it), what I was referring to is how Google now is the primary curator (to borrow from you dkin) of content on the internet.

They have become like the editor of a very big newspaper, with millions of potential journalists working for free.

They NOW advise how we should write, very similarly to the style guidelines of old established newspapers. At least if you want your page to be “published” (through their search engine), this is what you must do.

First, let it be said that journalism is the very poor cousin of writing proper.

And second, as Orwell put it, “Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations.”

Now, Google’s search engine has become the “editor in chief” of the Internet, you have to ask what are its criteria for publishing, and what gets “front page” and what gets pushed to small columns inside.

Of course, they have an advertiser for every “niche”. But their primary objective is “eyeballs”. Much of what is called the internet is heading towards being nothing else but a glorified newspaper, controlled by very similarly thinking interests as traditional newspapers.

There are implications for social-control in that, quite similar to the control implications there are in having a critical mass of people in the habit of reading the traditional daily newspapers.

Yes, in terms of how people search out information on the internet, you may “choose” to read the Times, Sun, National Enquirer or FT etc. A home for all “opinions” etc.

Politicians and human rights groups have reacted angrily to revelations that Britain’s spy agency intercepted and stored webcam images of millions of people not suspected of any wrongdoing with the aid of its US counterpart.

GCHQ files dating between 2008 and 2010 reveal that a surveillance program codenamed Optic Nerve collected images of Yahoo webcam chats in bulk and saved them to agency databases, regardless of whether individual users were an intelligence target or not.

In one six-month period in 2008 alone, the agency collected webcam images, including substantial quantities of sexually explicit material, from more than 1.8 million Yahoo user accounts globally.

The Tory MP David Davis said:

“We now know that millions of Yahoo account holders were filmed without their knowledge through their webcams, the images of which were subsequently stored by GCHQ and the NSA. This is, frankly, creepy.”

Davis, said it was perfectly proper for the intelligence agencies to use any and all means to target those suspected of terrorism, kidnapping and other serious crimes, but that the indiscriminate nature of the programme was alarming.

“It is entirely improper to extend such intrusive surveillance on a blanket scale to ordinary citizens,” he said.

Is telephone metadata sensitive? The debate has taken on new urgency since last summer’s NSA revelations; all three branches of the federal government are now considering curbs on access. Consumer privacy concerns are also salient, as the FCC assesses telecom data sharing practices.

President Obama has emphasized that the NSA is “not looking at content.” “[T]his is just metadata,” Senator Feinstein told reporters. In dismissing the ACLU’s legal challenge, Judge Pauley shrugged off possible sensitive inferences as a “parade of horribles.”

On the other side, a number of computer scientists have expressed concern over the privacy risks posed by metadata. Ed Felten gave a particularly detailed explanation in a declaration for the ACLU: “Telephony metadata can be extremely revealing,” he wrote, “both at the level of individual calls and, especially, in the aggregate.” Holding the NSA’s program likely unconstitutional, Judge Leon credited this view and noted that “metadata from each person’s phone ‘reflects a wealth of detail about her familial, political, professional, religious, and sexual associations.’”

The Obama’s administration has also refused to enter into a mutual “no-spy” agreement with Germany, in part because Berlin is unwilling or unable to share the kinds of surveillance material the Americans say would be required for such a deal.

Merkel is intensely aware of the importance of the surveillance controversy for her domestic audience, and is planning to voice Germany’s concerns privately with White House officials and leading senators. She will also be “forthright” in confronting the issue if she is asked by reporters during a press conference with Obama, according to a well-placed source with knowledge of the trip.

A senior US administration official denied the surveillance controversy would overshadow Merkel’s visit.

Good article by Shoshanna Zuboff called Dark Google about the ever increasing control of Google and it’s possible plans to move beyond the “data business” to the “reality business”. Worrying stuff, in my view.

First, because there is a dawning awareness that Google is forging a new kingdom on the strength of a different kind of power –– ubiquitous, hidden, and unaccountable. If successful, the dominion of this kingdom will exceed anything the world has known. The water is close to boiling, because Google understands this statement more profoundly than we do.

Second, because accessing the Web and the wider Internet have become essential for effective social participation across much of the world. A BBC poll conducted in 2010 found that 79% of people in 26 countries considered access to the Internet to be a fundamental human right. We rely on Google’s tools as we search, learn, connect, communicate, and transact. The chilling irony is that we’ve become dependent on the Internet to enhance our lives, but the very tools we use there threaten to remake society in ways that we do not understand and have not chosen.

Something new and dangerous
If there is a single word to describe Google, it is „absolute.” The Britannica defines absolutism as a system in which „the ruling power is not subject to regularized challenge or check by any other agency.” In ordinary affairs, absolutism is a moral attitude in which values and principles are regarded as unchallengeable and universal. There is no relativism, context-dependence, or openness to change.

Google kills Innovation
Mr. Schmidt’s open letter to Europe shows evidence of such absolutism. Democratic oversight is characterized as „heavy-handed regulation.” The „Internet”, „Web”, and „Google” are referenced interchangeably, as if Goggle’s interests stand for the entire Web and Internet. That’s a magician’s sleight of hand intended to distract from the real issue. Google’s absolutist pursuit of its interests is now regarded by many as responsible for the Web’s fading prospects as an open information platform in which participants can agree on rules, rights, and choice.

Email exchanges between National Security Agency Director Gen. Keith Alexander and Google executives Sergey Brin and Eric Schmidt suggest a far cozier working relationship between some tech firms and the U.S. government than was implied by Silicon Valley brass after last year’s revelations about NSA spying.

And now we’re being told that European politicians, diplomats, and reporters are at risk of prosecution in the United States if they’re digging too deeply into Snowden’s revelations. If they learn too much about what’s actually going on. If they seek the truth.

Modern surveillance and data-mining systems concentrate knowledge-power about us and our lives in the hands of corporations and government agencies who can then use it to shape our minds, feelings, and lives in ways over which we have precious little say. They deny us power to withhold knowledge about ourselves and our lives at the same time they deny us power to understand how they track us and to shape what they do with what they learn. They are progressively stealing and centralizing the right to privacy – and the power it gives – in their own hands.

The NSA’s wide-ranging surveillance programme should be curtailed, says hardware-maker Cisco in a letter to President Obama.
Cisco boss John Chambers said faith in US technology companies was being eroded by the NSA’s activities.
The letter comes after whistleblowers revealed the NSA regularly intercepted Cisco hardware to help it gather information on potential targets.
Mr Chambers said the NSA should be held to higher “standards of conduct”.

The NSA’s wide-ranging surveillance programme should be curtailed, says hardware-maker Cisco in a letter to President Obama.
Cisco boss John Chambers said faith in US technology companies was being eroded by the NSA’s activities.
The letter comes after whistleblowers revealed the NSA regularly intercepted Cisco hardware to help it gather information on potential targets.
Mr Chambers said the NSA should be held to higher “standards of conduct”.

Chambers coming out with this says very clearly that the NSA stuff is affecting the bottom line for big hardware companies. Destroying the village to save it.

It’s affecting the bottom line for all American based IT companies. Legislation passed in the wake of September 11 that gives the US government authority to compel companies to hand over data on their clients and employees is also impacting cloud computing where most of the issues in setup tend to be legal rather than technical.

FRONTLINE continues the dramatic inside story of mass surveillance in America with Part Two of United States of Secrets, an investigation into the hidden relationship between Silicon Valley and the National Security Agency.

Chambers coming out with this says very clearly that the NSA stuff is affecting the bottom line for big hardware companies. Destroying the village to save it.

It’s affecting the bottom line for all American based IT companies…

Ah, FFS they are one and the same. Any oligarchical tendencies today impacting our living environments comprises alliances of state and private-sector. These private sector interests were well happy enough in the recent past for their technology to be used in this way. The only thing that has changed is now the writing is going on the wall for them, so they try to disassociate themselves from their previous alliances. Fuck it galls me to hear the dumb-fuck libertarian apologists for this shit coming out of the woodwork, trying to re-write the reality. For example, check out this recent letter sent to NL government. gendo.nl/en/blog/arjen/letter-to-parliamentary-committee-on-government-it-projects These companies are just being put on the back foot, now. So they engage in subtle PR.

Chambers coming out with this says very clearly that the NSA stuff is affecting the bottom line for big hardware companies. Destroying the village to save it.

It’s affecting the bottom line for all American based IT companies. Legislation passed in the wake of September 11 that gives the US government authority to compel companies to hand over data on their clients and employees is also impacting cloud computing where most of the issues in setup tend to be legal rather than technical.

+1
Lots of deals in China were lost last year over this and it’s the same story this year.
Other jurisdictions are also playing hardball - hosted infrastructure must be within national boundaries and so forth. Can’t say I blame them but it’s making things complex and reducing efficiencies for “international” cloud service providers.

Edward Snowden is the greatest patriot whistleblower of our time, and he knows what I learned more than four decades ago: until the Espionage Act gets reformed, he can never come home safe and receive justice

I wondered how a 70-year-old Kerry would relate to that question as he looked at that picture and that headline. And then there he was on MSNBC an hour later, thinking about me, too, during a round of interviews about Afghanistan that inevitably turned to Edward Snowden ahead of my fellow whistleblower’s own primetime interview that night:

Microsoft has already engaged a Chinese law firm to help with the anti-monopoly case. But mystery surrounds the probe, with industry experts and lawyers questioning what, if any, violations Microsoft can have made in China, where the size of its business is negligible. (Reuters)

The ban comes in a climate of China-U.S. tensions over cyber espionage, with charges flying in both directions. In May, the U.S. charged five officers of the People’s Liberation Army with spying to steal trade secrets from American companies. China countered in recent weeks by resolving to cut relationships between state-owned companies and U.S. strategy consulting firms, and by identifying U.S. technology companies (including Microsoft, Facebook, and Yahoo) as security threats, given the NSA spying program that came to light last year. IBM (NYSE: IBM ) has also become a target, as the government urges Chinese banks to switch from IBM servers to ones produced by Chinese tech companies.

This context suggests that the ban is a political move. Microsoft is caught in a political spat between the U.S. and China, two countries whose relationship is often described as the most important of the 21st century. It is also one of the most complicated bilateral relationships today. Economic links between the two countries are incredibly strong, but the expansion of Chinese power poses problems for American power, not just in the Asia-Pacific region, but around the world. Unfortunately for multinational firms, international politics will continue to impact operations and bottom lines.

The issue of NSA spying using technology supplied by American multinationals such as Microsoft, Facebook and Google and other will have a more obvious direct impact on Ireland should the political ball swing that way across Europe. They have seriously rankled German politicians, this is the era of asymmetric warfare.

Microsoft Corp must turn over a customer’s emails and other account information stored in a data center in Ireland to the U.S. government, a judge ruled on Thursday, in a case that has drawn concern from privacy groups and major technology companies.
Microsoft and other U.S. companies had challenged the warrant, arguing it improperly extended the authority of federal prosecutors to seize customer information held in foreign countries.
Following a two-hour court hearing in New York, U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska said a search warrant approved by a federal magistrate judge required the company to hand over any data it controlled, regardless of where it was stored.
“It is a question of control, not a question of the location of that information,” Preska said.